Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Suspension of Orders Pending Appeal iro Labour Proceedings

HH06-12 : THE HERITAGE SCHOOL vs MONICA SEKA AND THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

Whereas Section 92(E) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides that the noting of an appeal against an award does not suspend the decision or determination, there is no such provision in relation to an appeal against an award by an arbitrator.
More

HH191-12 : VASCO OLYMPIO AND TSVANGIRAYI GARAKATA AND THREE OTHERS vs SHOMET INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The noting of an appeal in the Labour Court does not suspend the decision appealed against...for as long as the arbitral award has not been suspended or set aside on review or appeal in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], there is no basis upon which this court may decline its registration.
More

HH06-12 : THE HERITAGE SCHOOL vs MONICA SEKA AND THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

In..., this court reasoned thus:"..., (in) proceedings conducted in the public law domain under the provisions of the Act..., the common law presumption against the operation of judgments which have been appealed against applies, unless the Act provides to the contrary. In this case, the Act is silent on the issue." Relying on ...
More

Appealed
HH100-10 : INTER-AGRIC (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MADAVANHU ALLEN AND TWELVE OTHERS
Ruled By: BHUNU J

The thirteen respondents in this case are former employees of the applicant company. On 23 June 2009, they obtained an arbitral award against the applicant. The arbitral award required the applicant to pay the respondents a grand total of US$91,937=26 being damages for unlawful dismissal.Aggrieved by the arbitral award, the applicant appealed to the ...
More

HH162-09 : ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING HOLDINGS vs SEMUKELISO GONO
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The applicant is a duly registered corporate entity under the laws of this country. On 30 March 2008, following conciliation through an arbitrator, the dismissal of the respondent from amongst the ranks of the applicant's employees was confirmed. As a result, the parties' formal relation came to an end. At the time, the respondent was in possession of ...
More

HH237-10 : ISDORE HUSAIHWEVHU and WALTER MUTOWO and FUNGAI ZINYAMA vs UZ – USF COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMME
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The respondent, in seeking to oppose the registration of the award, has argued, firstly, that the award is the subject matter of an appeal in the Labour Court and has attached a copy of the Notice of Appeal to its opposing papers. However, the respondent concedes, in the same affidavit, that the noting of an ...
More

HH116-11 : TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD vs NAQUIB OMAR
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

In any event, argues the applicant, in terms of section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] the noting of an appeal with the Labour Court does not have the effect of suspending the judgment appealed against.
More

HH118-13 : MUNANDI ARCDEL & D-TROOP EMPLOYEES vs MUNANDI – ARCDEL & D-TROOP
Ruled By: BERE J

I am seized with this matter in terms of section 98(14) and 98(15) of the Labour Act which requires that an arbitral award be registered either in this court or the Magistrate's Court to pave way for its execution. It is supposed to be a fairly simple application as this court, by operation of ...
More

HH121-13 : WONDER CHAIRE and A.CHANGAMBIKA and M. GOLIATH and D. CHARI and C. MBUMBURU and OTHERS vs MT DARWIN BAZAAR
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The applicants are former employees of the respondent who were dismissed from employment between May and June 2011. A labour dispute having arisen at the time of the termination, such was referred to arbitration in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. On 1 November 2011, M.C. Kare, the arbitrator, made an arbitral award directing ...
More

HH211-14 : ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY vs RONALD MUTOMBODZI
Ruled By: NDEWERE J

It is common cause that the applicant has appealed against both the reinstatement award and the quantification award. However, the applicant conceded, and rightly so, in paragraph 31 and 33 of its heads of arguments, that an appeal does not suspend the decision appealed against. That being the case, the respondent therefore stands reinstated.
More

HH272-14 : TREVIGLO SERVICES trading as TADA TEAK AND IRON vs EMMERSON GWATIDZO
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

Having found that the applicant does not qualify for rescission of default judgment in terms of the Rules of this Court, it is now time to consider whether the provisions of the Model Law contained in the Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], Article 35 of the Model Law, can provide the applicant ...
More

Appealed
SC20-12 : ZIMBABWE OPEN UNIVERSITY vs GIDEON MAGARAMOMBE and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

Section 93E(3) as read with section 89(1)(a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides as follows:"92E Appeals to the Labour Court generally(3) Pending the determination of an appeal, the Labour Court may make such interim determination in the matter as the justice of the case requires."And:"89 Functions, powers and jurisdiction ...
More

SC05-17 : ZIMROCK INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs TRISH KABUBI
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and GUVAVA JA

It was the appellant's contention that section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] does not apply to appeals to the Labour Court against Arbitral awards. It submitted that those appeals are made in terms of section 98(10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] and in such appeals only questions of law may ...
More

HH08-15 : JOHN MAKARUDZE and MAXWELL MUNONDO vs COSMOS BUNGU and THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, HARARE MUNICIPAL WORKERS' UNION and THE HARARE MUNICIPAL WORKERS' UNION
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

It seems that the first defendant had appealed to the Labour Court against the arbitrator's decision. But the Labour Court had dismissed that appeal. He had then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. At the time of the hearing before me that application was still pending. The first defendant's ...
More

HH57-15 : MACRO PLUMBERS (PVT) LTD vs SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and OWEN CHIGOYA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

It would be recalled that, in terms of section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], an appeal does not suspend the arbitral award.
More

HH92-15 : CAPRI (PVT) LTD vs HOWARD MAPONGA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

A litigant who has challenged the arbitral award by way of an appeal or review to the Labour Court must then approach that court for a suspension or stay of the award in terms of section 92E(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Kukura Kurerwa Bus Company v Mukwena Ors HH477-14; Greenland v Zichire HH93-13.
More

HH477-14 : KUKURA KURERWA BUS COMPANY vs SIMBA MUKWENA and TRUST SINANI and RAYMOND CHIGWAZE and MESSENGER OF COURT, MUTARE
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

What the applicant is saying is that, because he has noted an appeal against the arbitral award, execution of the award should be stayed until the appeal has been determined by the Labour Court. Significantly, the applicant has not sought a suspension, in the Labour Court, of the arbitral award pending the appeal. What has to be ...
More

HH93-13 : SHEILA GREENLAND vs ZIMBABWE COMMUNITY HEALTH INTERVENTION RESEARCH PROJECT (ZICHIRE)
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I agree with the sentiments of MAKARAU JP…, in DHL International (Pvt) Ltd v Madzikanda 2010 (1) ZLR 201 (H) 206 E where she stated: “In my view, the amendment to the law, in 2005, to provide that appeals to the Labour Court would not suspend the decision appealed against was clearly meant to vary the ...
More

HH151-15 : CMED (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs KENNETH MAPHOSA and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

It was submitted, in University of Zimbabwe v Jirira Ors SC06-13, that there appears to be a divergence of legal authority on the question as to whether or not, on a proper consideration of section 92E and section 98(10) of the Labour Act, it can be concluded that appeals on points of law from ...
More

HH164-15 : JOSEPH NDUNA vs PROTON BAKERIES
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In Net One Cellular (Pvt) Ltd v Net One Employees Anor 2005 (1) ZLR (S)…, the learned Chief Justice ruled that: “When the Labour Court dismissed the appeal the employer appealed to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92D of the Act. The noting of that appeal had the effect of suspending the ...
More

HB123-17 : SERGEANT MAZUNGUNYE F048394B vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (SUPERINTENDENT MUTEMA) and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

In terms of section 34 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10]; “(1) A member, other than an officer, who is charged with a contravention of this Act or any order made thereunder or any offence specified in the Schedule may be tried by an officer of or above the rank of Superintendent and sentenced to any ...
More

View Appeal
HH311-18 : SERGEANT KHAUYEZA (F048677J) vs THE TRIAL OFFICER (Superintendent J. Mandizha) and THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP and CHAREWA J

(vii) Whether or not when the applicant files an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner General of Police, the determination to detain a member by the Commissioner General should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal Having answered the question whether or not an appeal lies to the High Court against the decision of the ...
More

SC48-19 : JACOB BETHEL CORPORATION vs EMMANUEL CHIKUYA
Ruled By: MAKARAU JA, GOWORA JA and BERE JA

Quite separately, and as a substantive order, the arbitrator ordered that the respondent be paid, as a bonus, an amount equivalent to 30 percent of his salary, less any payments made over the period of employment as a 13th cheque. The appellant appealed against the substantive award of a bonus to the respondent, arguing that the respondent was ...
More

HH140-13 : TELONE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs EDWIN MATINYARARE
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The respondent was employed by the applicant as Head Administration. As part of his employment benefits he was allocated a motor vehicle for his duties, namely, a Toyota Hilux registration number ABD 8617 (the vehicle). On 3 June 2011, the applicant terminated the respondent's contract of employment following disciplinary proceedings in terms of the National Code of Conduct. ...
More

HH231-15 : TAPFUMANEYI MUDZENGERERE and OTHERS vs CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

The applicants were granted an arbitral award by Arbitrator P Bvumbe in their favour on 28 August 2013. On 12 February 2014 the arbitral award was quantified. This is an application to have the arbitral award registered as an order of this court in terms of section 98(14) of the ...
More

HH73-12 : CHIKOMBA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs KENNETH MUNDOPA and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIVHU
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

When the parties appeared before me in chambers on 27 January 2012, I directed their legal practitioners to file heads of argument before I could make a determination on the matter. This they have done. I had discerned that the resolution of the real dispute between the parties hinged on ...
More

HH122-14 : ABIGAIL MVUDUDU vs ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING HOLDINGS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The applicant approached the court seeking an order to register an arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act).The brief background to the matter is that the applicant was employed by the respondent. A dispute arose which culminated in the applicant lodging a ...
More

HH13-16 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The application before me is an application for leave to execute pending appeal.The facts of the case have been covered in detail in the pleadings and what appears below is a brief summary of the relevant facts.The applicant herein applied to this Honourable Court to have an arbitral award registered. ...
More

HH562-14 : WORLD EDUCATION vs PHANUEL KAPFUDZARUWA
Ruled By: TSANGA J

This is an opposed application in which the applicant, namely, World Education, seeks a rescission of judgement in the matter HC377/14 in which the respondent was granted an order to register an arbitration award it had successfully obtained against the applicant.The applicant seeks rescission on the basis that the order ...
More

HH600-14 : DELTA BEVERAGES (PVT) LTD vs FREEDOM CHIMURIWO and CLERK OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR THE PROVINCE OF MASHONALAND IN HARARE N.O. and MESSENGER OF COURT
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

Section 92E(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides that:“(3) Pending the determination of an appeal, the Labour Court may make such interim determination in the matter as the justice of the case requires.”
More

HH813-15 : STANLEY MACHOTE vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ruled By: TSANGA J

In terms of section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], the general legal position is that an appeal does not suspend the decision appealed against.Also, in terms of section 92E(3) of the Labour Act, pending such determination, the Labour Court may make such interim determination as the justice of ...
More

SC06-13 : UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE vs KWANELE MURIEL JIRIRA and LOUIS MASUKO and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF, HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA

In chambers in terms of Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules.The applicant sought an order interdicting the respondents from levying execution on its property pending an appeal against an order of the High Court refusing it a stay of execution.The matter was brought before me as an urgent application.The ...
More

HH76-11 : SIBANGALIZWE DHLODHLO vs DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR MARONDERA and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE and KANTOR & IMMERMAN and WATERSHED COLLEGE
Ruled By: GOWORA J

This matter came before me as an urgent application.After having sight of the opposing papers filed by the respondents, I concluded that the matter was not urgent, and, by agreement of the parties, it was enrolled on my roll of opposed matters as all parties had filed all the necessary ...
More

HH57-15 : MACRO PLUMBERS (PVT) LTD vs SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and OWEN CHIGOYA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

It would be recalled that in terms of section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], an appeal does not suspend the arbitral award.
More

HH413-18 : LAFARGE CEMENT (ZIMBABWE) LIMITED vs MUGOVE CHATIZEMBWA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I agree with counsel for the applicant, that, there is no appeal which is pending at the moment, and that even if an appeal had been pending in the Labour Court such an appeal would not suspend the decision appealed against by virtue of the provisions of section 92E(2) of ...
More

SC08-16 : CFI RETAIL (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ERIC MANYIKA
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA and GOWORA JA

After hearing counsel for the appellant, the appeal was allowed with costs and the order of the court a quo set aside. The matter was remitted to the court a quo for it to be determined on the merits. It was indicated that reasons for the decision would follow in ...
More

SC141-21 : WISE GARIRA and SHEPHARD MASHINGAIDZE and BAYAI BAYAI vs NATIONAL ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION and FIRST CAPITAL BANK
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, BHUNU JA and KUDYA AJA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which ordered the removal of the three appellants from being signatories to the first respondent's Bank account with the second respondent.The appeal is opposed by the first respondent....,.BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASEThe first respondent ...
More

HMA38-19 : BERRINGTON ZVANYANYA and OTHERS vs ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

It is trite, that, an appeal against the decision of a judicial body or quasi-judicial body that is not a superior court does not suspend the decision.It is also trite, that, an application for leave to appeal is not an appeal: Makarudze Anor v Bungu Ors ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories